Raising the Bar: Recognizing the Intricacies of Cultural and Ecological Knowledge (CEK) in Natural Resource Management

D. Orcherton
{"title":"Raising the Bar: Recognizing the Intricacies of Cultural and Ecological Knowledge (CEK) in Natural Resource Management","authors":"D. Orcherton","doi":"10.22230/jem.2011v12n3a48","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In these rather tumultuous social and economic times, Aboriginal groups and natural resource practitioners often express the real need to look more closely at the importance and complexities of cultural ecological knowledge (CEK). To understand these intricacies and apply these principles on the ground, some theoretical constructs and practical examples need to be highlighted. Such constructs and examples can help explain the divergent world views of Indigenous knowledge and Western science within natural resource management. The objective of this article is to synthesize current literature and contemporary thought on the importance and complexities of cultural ecological knowledge (CEK) in natural resource management. In addition, it examines practical examples of the differences and similarities between Indigenous knowledge and Western science. The scope of this article is the breadth of understanding of Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous Western scientists the world over, with the intended audience being natural resource managers, scientists/academics, and traditional knowledge practitioners. The author takes the position that natural resource managers should create social legitimacy processes through collaborative learning and systems-thinking approaches. These processes can often be validated through transfer of oral and written “ways of knowing,” even when there are divergent world views. Success relies on designing clear objectives and outcomes when incorporating cultural/ecological knowledge in resource management as well as implementing systematic and culturally sensitive heritage assessments and characterizing cultural pluralism. Finally, there is a need for managers to incorporate CEK and to facilitate legislative, political, and ethical processes that help create social and cultural legitimacy in natural resource management.","PeriodicalId":129797,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ecosystems and Management","volume":"486 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ecosystems and Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22230/jem.2011v12n3a48","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

In these rather tumultuous social and economic times, Aboriginal groups and natural resource practitioners often express the real need to look more closely at the importance and complexities of cultural ecological knowledge (CEK). To understand these intricacies and apply these principles on the ground, some theoretical constructs and practical examples need to be highlighted. Such constructs and examples can help explain the divergent world views of Indigenous knowledge and Western science within natural resource management. The objective of this article is to synthesize current literature and contemporary thought on the importance and complexities of cultural ecological knowledge (CEK) in natural resource management. In addition, it examines practical examples of the differences and similarities between Indigenous knowledge and Western science. The scope of this article is the breadth of understanding of Indigenous peoples and non-Indigenous Western scientists the world over, with the intended audience being natural resource managers, scientists/academics, and traditional knowledge practitioners. The author takes the position that natural resource managers should create social legitimacy processes through collaborative learning and systems-thinking approaches. These processes can often be validated through transfer of oral and written “ways of knowing,” even when there are divergent world views. Success relies on designing clear objectives and outcomes when incorporating cultural/ecological knowledge in resource management as well as implementing systematic and culturally sensitive heritage assessments and characterizing cultural pluralism. Finally, there is a need for managers to incorporate CEK and to facilitate legislative, political, and ethical processes that help create social and cultural legitimacy in natural resource management.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
提高标准:认识自然资源管理中文化和生态知识(CEK)的复杂性
在这个相当动荡的社会和经济时代,土著群体和自然资源从业者经常表达真正需要更密切地关注文化生态知识(CEK)的重要性和复杂性。为了理解这些复杂性并在实际中应用这些原则,需要强调一些理论结构和实际例子。这样的构想和例子可以帮助解释自然资源管理中土著知识和西方科学的不同世界观。本文的目的是综合当前文献和当代思想关于文化生态知识(CEK)在自然资源管理中的重要性和复杂性。此外,它还考察了土著知识和西方科学之间的异同的实际例子。本文的范围是对全世界土著人民和非土著西方科学家的理解的广度,目标读者是自然资源管理者、科学家/学者和传统知识实践者。作者认为,自然资源管理者应该通过协作学习和系统思维方法创造社会合法性过程。这些过程通常可以通过口头和书面的“认识方式”的转移来验证,即使存在不同的世界观。成功依赖于设计明确的目标和结果,同时将文化/生态知识纳入资源管理,以及实施系统和文化敏感的遗产评估,并体现文化多元化的特征。最后,管理人员需要将CEK纳入其中,并促进立法、政治和道德进程,以帮助在自然资源管理中创造社会和文化合法性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
First Nations' Prescribed Burning in British Columbia Assessing the Feasibility of Meeting Target Fuel Loadings for Wildfire Reduction in North-Central British Columbia Cumulative Impact of Biotic and Abiotic Damage Agents on Lodgepole Pine Tree Form and Stand Structure in Southern British Columbia Comparison of Two Treatment Regimes for Managing Western Balsam Bark Beetle Disease Screening for Endangered Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Recovery
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1